ArticleCurationis2019
Reproductive health outcomes: Insights from experts and verbal autopsies.
Article in Curationis, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundReproductive health outcomes are a measure of maternal and neonatal health. South Africa's state of maternal health is of particular concern because of the two Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) targets for monitoring maternal health, namely MDG 5a, to reduce the maternal mortality rate by three-quarters, and MDG 5b, to achieve universal access to reproductive health by 2015. Maternal mortality ratio and universal access to reproductive health receive unequal responsiveness from government. Monitoring the maternal mortality ratio has received favourable attention compared to ensuring universal access to reproductive health, hence the limited published research findings on the latter.
objectivesThe purpose of this article is to report on the insights from reproductive health experts and verbal autopsies on the determinants of poor reproductive health outcomes.
methodIndividual interviews with a purposively selected sample of six reproductive health experts were conducted, augmented by verbal autopsies of 12 next of kin of women and newborn babies who died within the previous 2 years period of the study. Burnard's (1995) approach of content analysis was used to analyse the data.
resultsThe findings revealed lack of empowerment, inaccessible reproductive health services and separation of patients living with human immune deficiency virus and those patients diagnosed with acquired immune deficiency syndrome.
conclusionTo meet the reproductive health needs, especially of the rural population, urgent attention is needed to reduce their vulnerability to the risks of poor reproductive outcomes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.